BR Coy gall Bees a 
ee «i a ; 


Harold Francis Lranch 








T he. Me 
Trial of Jesus 





yee 





“ee 


ah 


, 5 











By HAROLD FRANCIS BRANCH 





rr ¥ 


. : te > 
. 


. 


A “a 
“pipe OES Sataa eats Lee . 
cr aL eer 








fee LRIAL @OF JESUS 


BY wr 


HAROLD FRANCIS BRANCH 


Pastor Albany Park Presbyterian Church of Chicago 


ad C 


CHICAGO 
THE BIBLE INSTITUTE COLPORTAGE ASS’N 
$26 North La Salle Street 





, 7 


f 
= 
i 
a 
- = 5 - 
- ~ SE 
rem 
: 
ta - 
y. 
= 
iN 
4 ~ 
ce 
‘ 
‘ yas 
t 
4 
‘ 
i 
‘ \ 
» 
* y/ hl 3 
\ 
é 4 \ 
‘ A 
e? 
fa" 4 rT 
ae 
t ‘ 
wd 
- 
“ . i 
ie i Po 
4 >" * 
f, P' : 
me ot ‘+ A 
¢ 
f . 
fh ¥ » ' 
«7 we. ed 4 . / 
“ Code Bie Ys ald i) 
pein ‘a re sxe 





PREFACE 


HERE are on the market a number of books 

dealing with the trial of Christ in a very de- 

tailed and often somewhat involved way. 

Most of these are so technical and labored in their 

treatment of the subject as to be of small value to the 
ordinary reader. 

The author became interested in the study of the 
trial of Christ early in his seminary course. He did 
special and independent research work in connection 
with the topic during the entire period of his stay in 
the seminary. Having long felt the need of a treat- 
ment of the trial of Christ which would more nearly 
meet the requirements of the average busy, uncritical, 
earnest Christian reader, he has attempted to produce 
such a booklet. 

There are many who have a somewhat general idea 
of the trial of Jesus but there are few who have a 
clear idea of the events in their sequence. It is of 
value to have a concatenated view of this, the most 
famous and the most vital of all trials in the history 
of criminal law. The following pages contain, there- 
fore, the story, hour by hour, of this most interesting 
trial. 

The book is brief. None of the scholarly and criti- 
cal questions are entered upon. The author has sought 
to present the scene at each point in the trial in such 
a vivid, accurate and devotional way that the reader 
will feel as though he were actually witnessing the prog- 
ress, step by step, of this trial of the Son of God. 


[3] 





PREFACE 


While, as has been said, the work is not designed to 
be critical, no time nor labor was spared in an effort 
to make it absolutely accurate as regards the sequence 
of events mentioned. | 

It is the prayer of the author, as he sends out this 
child of his heart and mind, that, under God’s grace, 
it may be a blessing to the hearts of men and bring 
many to love and to accept Him, ‘Who, being in the 
form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with 
God: but made himself of no reputation, and took upon 
him the form of a servant, and was made in the like- 
ness of men: and being found in fashion as a man, he 
humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, 
even the death of the cross.” } ) 

Harotp Francis BRANCH. 
The Minister’s Study, 7 
Albany Park Presbyterian Church, 
Chicago, Illinois. 3 


[4] 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


E are to discuss the most famous trial in the 
history of criminal law. The question be- 
fore us is, whether Jesus of Nazareth was 

duly tried and executed for breaking the law, or was 
ial under the pretense of legal process. 

_ One’s faith in Christianity is in no way involved in 
this inquiry. Jesus Christ came into the world with 
a definite mission. That mission may have involved 
violations rather than observances of the Jewish law 
as then known by Rabbinical traditions. He may have 
been regularly tried, convicted and condemned to 
death without casting a doubt upon His accepted mis- 
sion. Christianity rests upon a firmer basis than the 
mistakes of the Jews! 

All are very familiar with the events immediately 
preceding His death, but a brief review is necessary 
to a correct understanding of His trial. 

Tuesday afternoon (April 4, A. D. 30) * He left 
the temple at Jerusalem the last time. With His fol- 
lowers He went to the slope of the Mount of Olives 
and prophesied that within two days He would be 
delivered up to His enemies and crucified. 


* Scholars agree that it is practically impossible to fix the chronology 
of the life of Christ with any great degree of accuracy. It is generally 
conceded by men of letters that Christ was born in the early part of the 
year 4 B. C. The year 30 A. D. is fixed, with a somewhat less degree of 
certainty, as the date of the Crucifixion. Much depends upon whether one 
accepts the tripaschal or the quadripaschal theory as to the length of His 
public ministry. Scholars are greatly divided here. According to the first 
named theory—the tripaschal—there were three Passovers in the course of 
Christ’s ministry. According to the quadripaschal theory there were four 
Passovers during that time. The writer accepts the latter named theory 
and the dates herein contained are on that basis. 


i$] 


erence ee 


THE TRIAL OF JESU 


What a day it had been! It has gone down it 
Christian history as “The Day of Controversy.’ 
Early in the morning, as He had come into the temple 
the Priests and the Elders had come to Him, asking by 
what authority He did these things, thus seeking t 
discredit Him. He had responded by a question which 
as we know, His questioners dared not answer!—“Th 
baptism of John, whence was it?” (Matt. 21:23-27. 
It was a masterpiece of dialectic on the part of Jesu 
and, while His critics were still wincing at the hom 
thrust, He pursued them with three parables of warn 
ing (Matt. 21:28—22:14). Then, as the Priests anc 
Elders turned away, Jesus continued to teach the mul 
titude, but He was not to be left in peace. The Phari 
sees had noted the discomfiture of the Priests and thi 
Elders and now determined to try their hand at th 
game of discrediting Jesus. They approach with ; 
question evincing no less skill than villainy: “Is i 
lawful to give tribute to Cesar?” (Matt. 22:17-22. 
While it seemed a clever question it was a clever trick 
and, seeing the plot laid for Him, Jesus turns on them 
denouncing their hypocrisy, and in a few minutes strip 
the mask from their faces and sends them slinkin; 
away. , 

Presently He was approached by another group— 
the Sadducees. They had hugely enjoyed the way in 
which the Pharisees, who were their theological ene 
mies, had met defeat and confusion at the hands o 
the Master, and now they come with a pretentious air 
confident of their superiority. The question whicl 
they propound to Him has to do with the resurrectio1 
and was utterly ridiculous. According to all Jewisl 


[ 6] 


AoE TRIAL. OF JESUS 


thought this woman who had had seven husbands 
would always be considered the wife of the first hus- 
band. The Sadducees knew this perfectly well. Jesus 
might well have brushed their question aside, answer- 
ing levity with scorn; however, He replies reprovingly, 
“Ye do err, not knowing the Scriptures” (Matt. 22: 
23-33). 

| The Lord’s adversaries had been worsted in each 
attempt and had they been wise, would have acknowl- 
edged their defeat and troubled Him no more. But 
the Pharisees, exulting in the discomfiture of the Sad- 
ducees, determined to make one more effort. They 
accordingly appointed one of their number to ask Him 
what was the greatest commandment in the law—a 
question of endless dispute in their own theological 
controversies. “The first and greatest,” answered Jesus, 
‘is, ‘Hear, O Israel, the Lord thy God is one Lord, 
and thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole 
heart, and thy whole soul and with thy whole mind 
and with thy whole strength.’ Second this: ‘Thou 
shalt love thy neighbor as thyself. Greater than these 
is no commandment. On these two commandments 
the whole law hangs and the prophets.’” “Of a truth, 
Teacher,” the questioner cried, “Thou hast well said. 
To love one’s neighbor as one’s self is exceeding more 
than all burnt offerings and sacrifices” (Matt. 22:34- 
40). Then comes one of those beautiful little touches 
that show the tenderness of the Master in such a vivid 
way. Moved by the wistfulness of the man’s reply, 
Jesus said, looking on him kindly, “Thou art not far 
from the Kingdom of God” (Mark 12:34). One can- 
not help but wonder what became of that scribe! Did 


Seal 









THE  TRPAL OFS 7 ES eee 


he obey the gracious invitation and take the decisive 
step? 

The long controversy, so skillfully conducted, so 
persistently renewed, is ended, and Jesus stands vic- 
torious. “No man dared to interrogate Him any more” 
(Matt. 22:46), and so as evening approached He with- 
drew to the house of Simon, whom He had cured of 
leprosy, and where a supper had been prepared for 
Him. This happy supper with those whom He has} 
blessed, marks the beginning of those events which! 
lead to His crucifixion. Judas here heard Jesus re-' 
peat over and over again that He was soon to be 
delivered to His enemies and crucified. This worldly 
man, Judas, had hoped that Jesus was to be King of 
the Jews in a political sense and that hope had fathered 
an ambition to be one of the select few who should 
govern in Judea. But now, without any of these great 
fruits having been realized, Jesus announces that He 
is about to die, and Judas, seeing that his ambitions 
for political betterment are doomed to disappointment, 
resolves to desert the unpopular cause and seek refuge 
in the camp of the enemy. This he does, and steal- 
ing out, makes his way to the temple. There he arouses 
the sleeping guards and says, “I have come to betray 
Jesus of Nazareth.” Thus he bargains with the priests 
to deliver up his Master for thirty pieces of silver— 
$18.50—the price of a slave! (Exodus 21:32.) : 

Wednesday passed and Thursday night Jesus insti- 
tuted the Lord’s Supper in that upper room in Jeru- 
salem. Here too was Judas whom Christ knew had 
agreed to betray Him. Jesus announces the betrayal 
in the unique way well known and, leaving the upper 


[8] 


Litre nt AD ORF VJESUS 





room, He and His disciples make their way to the 
Mount of Olives. There He bade them farewell for 
the last time and withdrew to the Garden of Geth- 
semane. Meanwhile, at the temple, Judas and the 
Priests have finished plans for the betrayal. In the 
Garden, Jesus is taken into custody and, while Jeru- 
salem is asleep, He is led by the guard before the Great 
Sanhedrin for trial. 

Let us diverge for a moment and consider the court 
before which He was brought for trial. 

We have nothing that compares with the Jewish 
Sanhedrin. Its functions were political, legislative, 
judicial, municipal, religious and educational. In other ° 
words, if you could imagine a body which had many 
of the duties of our legislatures, judges, juries, city 
councils, township boards and school boards, you 
would have some idea of the Jewish Sanhedrin. 

There were three Sanhedrins—the Local Sanhedrins, 
the Provincial Sanhedrins, and the Great Sanhedrin 
which sat at Jerusalem. It was the Great Sanhedrin 
before which Jesus was brought. It was a body of 
seventy-one members. 

Members of the Sanhedrin were required to have 
seven qualifications—wisdom, gentleness, soberness, 
piety, hatred of mammon, love for the truth, and to be 
men of good repute. They were not allowed to seek 
office. One who secured his seat in the body through 
having sought it was despised by his associates. 

Such were the principles which originally governed 
the consistency of the Jewish Sanhedrins, but the court 
had decayed with the Jewish law and now was little 
more than a legal monstrosity. One writer on the sub- 


Lo] 





THE TRIAL OF JESUS. 










ject has put it this way—“The law of Moses had, fo 
fifteen hundred years before Christ, flowed from Moun 
Sinai as clear and as pure as the head waters of th 
Mississippi; meandered through two centuries; bee 
lost in the wilderness; carried captive to Babylon; re 
turned to Judea; corrupted by Persian idolatry, ther 
by Grecian Polytheism and Egyptian Pantheism, and} 
worse than all, the Rabbis, the nurses of the law, ha¢ 
so clouded it by casuistry and vain speculation, tha. 
on the coming of Christ, the generally accepted law of 
Moses was as dark and unhealthful as are the waters 
of the deltas of Louisiana, into which has been dumped 
the refuse of a thousand cities.” 7 
The court before which Jesus was tried was a cor- 
rupt court. Many of its members held their posi- 
tions by purchase. The ideal system of selecting 
judges, to which we have just now called your atten- 
tion, was not then observed. For a series of years 
during the decline of the Jewish Commonwealth, the 
worst men of the community sought and obtained ju- 
dicial preferment. Judea was passing through a 
period of great political and religious excitement. At 
such a time in any state, the scum of society is stirred 
up and usually possesses the surface of the troubled 
waters. And then this court was prejudiced against 
Jesus. He had been condemned to death before He 
was tried! During the few months preceding this 
Thursday night the Sanhedrin had met three times to 
discuss the teachings of Jesus. At the first meeting 
a decree of excommunication had been passed, not cal 
upon Jesus, but upon all who should believe on Hit 
(John 9:22). The Sanhedrin alone had the pees 


[ 10 ] 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


to excommunicate and it exercised this power in spite 
Df the somewhat feeble protest of Nicodemus, who was 
one of their number (John 7:37-53). At the two meet- 
ings which followed (John 11:46-57 and Matt. 26:3-5 
and Luke 22:1-3) Jesus was tried, condemned and 
sentenced to death without having ever been present 
pr having been given a hearing. All of this was in 
Eon of the Jewish law as given in the Talmud— 
‘Testimony shall not be heard in the absence of the 
party accused,” and “No man shall be condemned un- 
less he is present” (Mishna, Sanhedrin, Ch. IV, 6). 
Before inquiring into the several steps taken in the 
trial let us ask this question: From what we know 
of the life of Jesus, had He violated the law of the 
Jewish state so that He was guilty of an offense pun- 
ishable by death? The question is easily answered 
and the answer does not weaken any intelligent faith 
in orthodox Christianity! Jesus had ignored the tra- 
ditions of the fathers. He had broken the traditional 
or rabbinical Sabbath (Matt. 12:10-14). He had 
called the Scribes and Priests a wicked and adulterous 
generation—a generation of vipers! (Matt.12:34). He 
said He was the Messiah (John 4:26). He had proph- 
esied the destruction of the temple (Mark 13:1-2). 
He said He was the Son of God (John 9:35-37). He 
had sought to bring home to them the Spirit of the 
law—fulfilling it as He said (Matt. 5:17); pouring 
into it new and richer content. The words “ye have 
heard it hath been said by them of old time * * * 
but I say unto you” were on His lips again and again. 
All of these things He had done because He had come 
into the world with a definite mission-—the fulfilment 


[11] 





THE TRIAL OF PEStee 


of a higher law than any known to Jewish jurispru 
dence. 

The trial was in two distinct parts, or rather, in th 
form of two separate and distinct trials. The firs 
was the Jewish, or ecclesiastical trial; and the second 
the Roman, or civil trial. The first was conducted be 
fore ec tebns Annas, and the Sanhedrin; and the “q 
ond before Pilate and Herod Antipas. 

Let us first consider the trial before Caiaphas ane 
the Sanhedrin. Upon what charge was this mat 
brought before the court to be tried in the middle o: 
the night? Was it blasphemy, false prophecy, or Sab 
bath-breaking? The record points sometimes to on 
and sometimes to another charge. The real charge 
evidently, was sedition and blasphemy. Jesus stooc 
before the court and was questioned by the High Pries: 
Caiaphas. His answers and His silence were alike un. 
satisfactory. Witnesses were called in, but their state. 
ments did not agree. At last, Caliph in exaspera. 
tion, rose from his couch and cried, “Art thou the Sor 
of God?” Jesus answered, “You have said it. I am.’ 
‘What need is there of more witnesses?” cried the 
High Priest, “He has blasphemed,” and, says the rec- 
ord, “Caiaphas rent his clothing” (Matt. 26:62ff.). 

The vote of the court was taken and Jesus was con- 
demned to death unanimously (Matt. 26:66). This 
session of the court was held about three o’clock in 
the morning of Friday, the Festal day. The court 
adjourned for a few hours’ rest and Jesus was given 
over to the guards, who inflicted upon Him a series 
of repulsive indignities. They blindfolded Him and 
spat in His face, and then told Him to prophesy who 


[12 ] 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


it was who did it (Matt. 26:67, 68). This affliction 
was of short duration, however, for the Priests arose 
after a brief sleep to meet the more notable men of 
the priesthood that the sentence just pronounced might 
be ratified. This was a mere matter of form and hastily 
disposed of in order that Jesus might be placed under 
the guard of the Roman authorities before His fol- 
lowers should rescue Him. 

The Jewish court, or the Sanhedrin, had authority 
to try capital cases under their own Jaw. In case of 
an acquittal of the accused, the matter was ended 
without Roman interference; but in case of a convic- 
tion, the Roman Governor was required to review the 
case and confirm or reverse the decision. This provi- 
sion was, to the Jews, a galling reminder of their sub- 
jection to Rome! Thus ends the Hebrew trial. Jesus 
is condemned. Let us now examine the Jewish law in 
search of errors. 


ERRORS IN THE TRIAL OF JESUS FROM THE 
.STANDPOINT OF JEWISH LAW 


FIRST ERROR 


The Arrest of Jesus was illegal. 
a.I. Because no legal business could be conducted 
after the sun went down (Mishna, Sanhedrin, 
ch. EV, 1). 

2. Because effected through the agency of a 
traitor and informer in violation of the Mosaic 
code and a Rabbinic rule based thereon. 
(Lev. 19:17, 18). 


a. Chandler’s Trial of Jesus, p. 255. 


[ 13 ] 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 





Because it was not the result of a legal man- 


date of a court whose intentions were to con- 


duct a legal trial for the purpose of reaching 
a righteous judgment. 


SECOND ERROR 


The EXAMINATION before Annas and Caiaphas was il- 
legal. 
b. 1. Because it was conducted at night (Mishna, 


2. 


b, Chandler’s Trial of Jesus, p. 2109. 


Sanhedrin, ch. IV, 1). 


Because Annas and Caiaphas sat alone in: 


each case, in direct violation of a Hebrew law 
which provided that no judge, sitting alone 
could interrogate an accused person or sit in 
judgment upon his legal rights (Deut. 19:16- 
18. The plural form of the word “Fudge” is 
significant here). 

Because Caiaphas seeks to make Jesus in- 
criminate Himself in direct. violation of 
Hebrew law (Mishna, Sanhedrin, ch. II, HA): 
(Matt. 26:63.) 


f 
! | 


Because the trial was opened with no pre- 


viously prepared bill of indictments against 
the prisoner—a provision necessary to legalize 
the proceedings of every court of justice, the 
Sanhedrin itself evidently originating the 
charges, while as Edersheim says, “The San- 
hedrin did not and could not originate 
charges, it only investigated those brought be- 
fore it.’ (Edersheim’s Life and Times of 
Jesus, p. 309, Vol. I.) 


: 
“ 


[ 14 | 


| PHe TRIAL OF JESUS 


| 5. Because Caiaphas began the examination with 
a captious question (John 18:19), disregard- 
| ing the law of witnesses (Deut. 17:2-6). 


THIRD ERROR 


\The tNDICTMENT against Jesus was illegal. 
1. Because it was vague, two-fold, and indefinite 
| (Mark 14: 57ff.; Deut. 19:15). 
| 2. Because it was made, in part, by Caiaphas, 
| while Hebrew law permitted none but the 
leading witnesses to present the charge (Deut. 
; TFO)o 

3. Because Caiaphas was abusive toward Jesus 
in his manner of conducting the hearing. The 
expressions used by the judge to the accused 
were to be humane and even kind (Mishna, 
Sotah, ch. I, 4). (For an example of this car- 
ried out in practice, see Joshua 7:19.) 

4. Because the charge was presented by two wit- 
nesses who testified simultaneously—flagrant 
violation of all law and custom. (Witnesses 
were to give their testimony separately. See 
Daniel: Apocrypha—Daniel and the two 
Elders. ) 


FOURTH ERROR 


_ The PRoceEDINGs against Jesus were illegal. 

1. Because the integrity of the witnesses was not 
established before their testimony was heard. 
All witnesses were to be duly put on oath be- 
fore testifying (Deut. 19:18, 19). 


[15] 


THE TRIALOE 7 Estee 


2. Because the witnesses, though known to be 
false (Matt. 26:59-60; Mark 14:55), were 
not punished as provided for in Mosaic law 
(Deut. 19:18-21). 

3. Because Jesus was struck in the mouth. This 
disgusting act of brutality reflects on the sense 
of justice and the humanity of the judges. It 
is a fundamental axiom of Hebrew law, as of 
all law, save the Roman, that a prisoner is 
considered innocent until proven guilty. 

a.4. Because the trial was begun and concluded 
within one day—a flagrant violation of 
Hebrew law (Mishna, Sanhedrin, ch. IV, 1). 
If a man were convicted on a capital charge 
no judgment could be pronounced until the 
afternoon of the following day. One night 
must intervene between the verdict and the 
sentence. In the meantime the judges par- 
took of no food. Early the next morning they 
again assembled and heard the witnesses of 
the accused. As the day wore away they dis- 
cussed and pondered over the serious charac- 
ter of their duty and their great responsibility. 
Late in the afternoon they took their final 
vote. If the required number again voted to 
convict, the accused was at once sentenced 
and led forth to execution. Was Jesus tried 
in this way? He was not! a 

5. Because the trial was held at night, in direct 
violation of Hebrew law Cai Sanhedrin, 
Choi e 


a. Chandler’s Tria] of Jesus, p. 267. 


[ 16 ] 





Pie TRIAL. OF JESUS 


We have seen that Jesus was arrested in 
Gethsemane about midnight and that His first 
ecclesiastical trial took place about two or 
three o’clock in the morning. Luke tells us 
that there was a daybreak meeting which was 
evidently intended to give a semblance of 
legality and regularity to the affair since, as 
we have seen, the law required two trials of 
the case. 

The exact time of the beginning of the night 
session of the Sanhedrin is not known. It is 
generally supposed that the arrest took place 
in the Garden between midnight and one 
o’clock. The question has been frequently 
asked: “Why did the Sanhedrin meet at 
night, thus violating the law?” The answer is 
referable to the treachery of Judas, and to the 
fact that “he sought opportunity to betray 
Him unto them, in the absence of the multi- 
tude.” Luke tells us that the members of the 
Sanhedrin “feared the people” (Luke 22:2). 
Mark informs us that they had decided not to 
attempt the arrest and execution of Jesus at 
the time of the Passover, “lest there be an up- 
roar of the people” (Mark 14:2). 


FIFTH ERROR 


The CONDEMNATION of Jesus was illegal. 


I, 


Because the verdict of the Sanhedrin was 
unanimous for His death (Mark 14:64). 
This fact marks a peculiar point of difference 
between our law and the Jewish jurisprudence. 


[17 ] 


ern! 
THE TRIAL OF JESU ogee 
In our courts a man who is condemned unani 
mously is thought guilty indeed. it was no 
so in the Hebrew courts. There the judge: 
were expected to be the defenders of the ac 
cused, and if the vote of condemnation wa 
unanimous, it was taken for granted that th 
judges had failed in their duty as defender 
and the accused was at once released. 

4.2. Because Christ’s condemnation was founde 
upon His uncorroborated confession. Jesu 
was compelled by the High Priest to be wit 
ness against Himself. Caiaphas said to Jesus 
“I adjure Thee by the Living God, to tell u 
whether Thou be the Christ, the Son of th 
Living God.” The court had no right to as! 
that question. He should not have bee! 
called upon to pebte Himself. The an 
swer came, “I am.”’ Upon His own testimon 
Jesus was convicted and condemned, and a 
this in spite of the fundamental maxim o 
Jewish jurisprudence: ‘No man conviets hir 
self”? (Maimonides, Sanhedrin, ch. IV, 2) an 
“at the mouth of two or more witnesses let | 
be established” (Deut. 19:15). 

b. 3. Because sentence was passed in a place fot 
bidden by Jewish law. Jesus was tried for 
capital offense in the palace of the Hig 
Priest, while Jewish law declared that all sue 
trials were to be heard in the hall of hew 
stone within the temple. 


"ey oehandicd s Trial of Jesus, p. 271. 
. Chandler’s Trial of Jesus, p. 287. 


[18 ] 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


b. 4. Because the High Priest rent his clothing in 
disregard of Jewish law (Lev, 21:10; 10:6). 

c.5. Because the session of court at which Jesus 
was condemned was held before the offering 
of the morning sacrifice (Talmud Bab., San- 
hedrin, ch. I, 19). “Since the morning sac- 
rifice was offered at dawn of day it was 
hardly possible for the Sanhedrin to assemble 
before an hour after that time” (Magath’s 
Jesus Before the Sanhedrin, p. 109). 

6. Because the balloting was irregular. The 
members of the Sanhedrin, in case of a trial 
for a capital offense were required to vote in 
turn, beginning with the younger (this provi- 
sion wisely made in order that the vote of the 
younger man might not be affected by the vote 
of the older), and each was to say in answer 
to the call of his name: “I absolve,” or “I 
condemn.” In the case of Christ they all 
cried out their condemnation at once! (Matt. 
26:66.) | 

a.7. Because the defense was not heard.: There 
were to be two parts to every trial—the accu- 
sation and the defense (Mishna, Sanhedrin, 
ch. IV, 5); (Deut. 13:14). There was in the 
trial of Christ no pretense of a defense. 

8. Because the testimony of the two witnesses, 
false as they were; did not agree (Matt. 
14:56; 26:60), and in accordance with the 
law Christ should have been at once released 





» Chandler’s Trial of Jesus, p. 287. 
 Chandler’s Trial of Jesus, p. 260. 
» Chandler’s Trial of Jesus, p. 309. 


[ 19 | 





THE TRIAL OF JESUS 





and the false witnesses slain (Deut. 19:1 
or}: 

9. Because the witnesses distorted Christ’ 
words. He did not say, “I will destroy,” 0 
“T can destroy,” but said simply, “Destroy 
(John 2:19-21). They accused Him of say 
ing, “I am able to destroy” (Matt. 26:60, 61 


So much for the Hebrew trial! Fraudulent through 
out! Now, what of the Roman trial? 

They immediately, and in the early hours of Frida 
morning, took Jesus before Pontius Pilate, the Roma 
Procurator. This sovereign was in his house in th 
northeast corner of the city near the Temple of At 
tonia. The punctilious Jews approached the hous 
but remained on the steps, not daring to go in, becau: 
it was the Passover season and they would have bee 
“defiled” had they entered the house of a Gentile. 
is one of the ironies of history that men so fearful | 
ceremonial defilement, should think nothing of layi 
murderous hands upon God’s Son! Pilate, in respon 
to their clamour, appeared on the steps. As he glar 
at this mob which had disturbed his early morni 
meditations—for these Roman Governors were © 
early risers—one can well imagine the contempt Ww! 
which he surveyed them! Fixing his eye upon t 
leaders, he demanded, “What accusation bring y 
against this man?” Caiaphas, at that moment, col 
think of none and answered, “If he were not a ma 
factor, we would not have delivered Him unto yot 
“Take ye Him and judge Him according to your lav 
(John 18:31), said Pilate, contemptuously. TT! 


[ 20 ] 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 











however, would not serve the purpose of the accusers, 
and they raised a clamour, whereupon Pilate insisted 
upon knowing the exact charge. 

The priests were hard “put to”! It would not do 
to say that Jesus was a blasphemer,. Pilate would have 
snapped his fingers at such a charge! What cared he 
for blasphemy? And yet blasphemy was the charge 
upon which Jesus had been condemned by the Sanhe- 
dyin. All the cunning of the Priests was demanded by 
this emergency. They must accuse Jesus of some po- 
litical offense over which Pilate would assume jurisdic- 
tion. ‘We found this fellow perverting the nation, and 
forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, saying that he is 
Christ, a King” (Luke 23:2), said Caiaphas. It was 
a deliberate lie. At no time had Jesus forbidden to pay 
tribute to Cesar. To the contrary, He had explicitly 
told them to render to Cesar the things which were 
Cesar’s. The charge, however, had to be made, else 
Pilate would not take charge of the case. 

Jesus therefore stood before the Roman Governor 
charged, not with blasphemy, but with treason against 
the Roman state! How Pilate must have enjoyed the 
situation! These Jews so worried about paying tribute 
to Cesar! They had always been so eager to pay that 
tribute! How zealous they had suddenly become in 
caring for the safety of the Roman state and for her 
revenue! The Priests knew that the charge was a 
mere pretense, but the pretense had to be made or 
Pilate would not assume jurisdiction over the case. _ 

The charges of high treason and of sedition against 
Jesus were all the more serious because the Romans 
believed Palestine to be a hotbed of insurrection and 


[21] 





THE PRITAL COP Pe ote: 


sedition. Pilate was, therefore, interested at once wh 
he heard this charge. “If,” Pilate must have said, “t 
fellow pretends to be a King, as Simon and A 
throgenes did; if He says that Judea has a right 
have a King other than Cesar, He is guilty of treaso 
and it is my solemn duty, as deputy of Tiberius, 
ascertain the fact and have Him put to death.” 

The beginning of the interrogation of Jesus with 
the palace is reported by all of the evangelists in tl 
same way. Addressing the prisoner, Pilate asked, “A 
Thou the King of the Jews?” (Luke 23:3.) Jesus a 
swered him, “Sayest thou this of thyself or did othe 
tell it thee of me?” | 

This was a most natural and fitting response of th 
Nazarene to the Roman. It was necessary first { 
understand the exact nature of the question before a 
appropriate answer could be made. Jesus simpl 
wished to know whether the question was asked frot 
a Roman or Jewish—from a temporal or spiritual— 
standpoint. If the interrogation was directed from 
Roman—a temporal point of view—if Pilate was think 
ing of legions and navies of a king like Cesar, lordin 
it over men by sheer military power, surrounded by | 
scheming and corrupt court—if that was what Pilat 
had in mind—His answer would be an emphatic nega 
tive. If, however, the inquiry had been prompted b: 
the Jews, it was then pregnant with religious meanin; 
and called for a different reply, one which would, a 
once, repudiate all pretentions to such a kingship a 
Czsar’s, and at the same time assert His claims to thi 
Messiahship and to that higher sovereignty which i: 
still in the future when the kingdoms of this worl 


[ 22 ] 





Perera in TATOO Ry ESUS 





(shall) have become the kingdoms of our Lord and 
of His Christ; and He shall reign forever and ever. 
But all of this was lost upon Pilate, who answered, 
“Am Ia Jew? Thine own nation and the Chief Priests 
have delivered Thee unto me. What hast Thou done?”’ 
To this Jesus replied, “My Kingdom is not of this 
world; if my Kingdom were of this world, then would 
my Servants fight, that I should not be delivered to 
the Jews, but now is my Kingdom not from hence” 
(John 18:36). | 
First He had answered negatively: ‘““My Kingdom is 
not of this world.” By this He meant that there was 
no possible rivalry between Him and Cesar. But, in 
making this denial, He had used two words of grave 
import: “My Kingdom.” Those two words struck the 
sar of Pilate with electric force, and in Pilate’s reason- 
ing, in the use of them Jesus stood self-convicted. For 
how, thought Pilate, can He pretend to have a king- 
dom unless He pretends to be a King? And then as 
if to cow and intimidate the prisoner; as if to avoid 
an unpleasant issue to the affair, he advanced threaten- 
ingly upon the Christ and asked the question which the 
Bible puts into his mouth: “Art thou a King then?” 
Rising from the simple dignity of a man to the 
beauty and glory and grandeur of God, Jesus used the 
most wonderful, beautiful, and meaningful words in 
the literature of the earth:. “Thou sayest that I am— 
a King! To this end I was born, and for this cause 
I came into the world, that I should bare witness to the 
truth. Every one that is of the truth heareth my 
voice” (John 18:37). 


[ 23 ] 






SEL RTO Te Ce Baas 





The effect of this statement of Christ’s on Pilate fis 
evident for he at once appeared before the Priests an{d 
declared, “I find no fault with him” (John 18:38}. 
Thus Jesus was acquitted of the political charge, kt y 
the court having Him in custody. He ought to hayje 
been released and set free. The blood-thirsty Priests: 
however, would not permit this, and raised a frighjt- 
ful din before the palace, insisting upon His executioyn. 
“He has perverted women and children,” they cried, 
“and systematically stirred up the whole nation from 
Galilee to Jerusalem. There is not a village or town 
in the land where He has not won converts and fill ed 
them with the wildest expectation. He has appealeyd 
to the nation to join His Kingdom.” ; 


The Priests were unfortunate in mentioning thet cm 


Jesus was a Galilean. Herod, the Tetrarch of Galilec., 
was in Jerusalem at the time! 

Let us pause a moment here to consider’ this mai 
Herod, before whom Jesus was now led for trial: The 
pages of sacred history mention the name of no more 
shallow and contemptible character than this wp 


princeling, this dissolute Idumean Sadducee. Com- — 


pared with him, Judas is eminently respectable. Judas 


had a conscience, which, when smitten with remorse, 


drove him to suicide. It seems doubtful whether 
Herod had a spark of the celestial fire which we call 
conscience. He was a typical oriental prince, whose 
chief aim in life was the gratification of his passions. 
The worthlessness of his character was so pronounced 


that it excited a nauseating disgust in the mind of 


Jesus, and disturbed for a moment that serene and 
lofty magnanimity which characterized His whole life 


[ 24 | 


i 


Waa wen lesOr BSUS 


and conduct. To Herod is addressed the only purely 
contemptuous epithet that the Master is recorded to 
have used. And He said unto them, ‘‘Go ye, and tell 
that fox, Behold, I cast out devils and I do cures today 
and tomorrow, and the third day I shall be perfected” 
(Luke 13:32). Herod!—the son of a father who was 
ten times married, and had murdered many of his 
wives, the slave of a lewd, wicked woman; what bet- 
ter could be expected than a cruel, crafty, worthless 
character, whose attributes were those of a fox? 

Herod Antipas had long desired to see Jesus, not 
because of any real desire to know Him, but simply as 
one might look forward to seeing a great magician or 
wonder-worker. 

His interview with the Master, however, was dis- 
appointing.. Jesus, in his presence, maintained an atti- 
tude of lofty reserve and of supreme contempt. 
Finally, tiring of his efforts to have sport out of the 
Man, and perhaps awed by His majestic mien, Herod 
orders Him returned to Pilate! 

Herod was a crafty politician and entirely too 
shrewd to allow himself to become entangled in a trial 
fraught with such grave possibilities of trouble with 
the fanatical Jews. No doubt it was with an inward 
chuckle that he referred the whole tangled matter to 
his luckless contemporary and enemy, Pilate! One can 
well imagine Pilate’s feeling of disappointment and 
chagrin at seeing the Jews returning with Jesus, to 
him! He had thought himself well rid of the awkward 
case. 

A happy thought occurred to him, however. It 
was a custom of the Roman Procurator to release, dur- 


em | 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


ing the week of the Passover, one prisoner who might 
have been condemned to death. Pilate, accordingly, 
reminded the Jews of this custom and declared, “I will, 
therefore, chastise Him and release Him.” . 

Why, O Pilate, art thou chastising the Man? If He ~ 
is guilty of the charge brought against Him, chastise- 
ment is not sufficient punishment. If he is innocent, 
chastisement is unjust. : 

There can be only one answer to the question. 
Pilate in this way sought to compromise with the 
blood-thirsty Jews. And so Jesus is handed over to be 
scourged. 

Scourging was a most terrific punishment. The 
Roman scourge was a whip—a handle about a foot long _ 
with seven long lashes of leather attached. At inter-- 
vals of about two inches there were tied in the thongs 
sharp three-cornered bits of steel or bone or lead. The 
process of scourging was accomplished by stripping the 
victim to the waist, after which six soldiers took turns 
laying the terrific blows upon the bare back. So awful 
was the punishment that teeth and eyes were often 
knocked out and sometimes the very entrails of the 
prisoner were laid bare. That Jesus lived through this 
punishment is a testimony to His manhood and re- | 
markable vitality. 

In some pictures Christ is represented as an effem- 
inate individual—pale-faced, thin and delicate. Such 
pictures are libels on the Manhood of the Master. He 
was a MAN! Strong, red-blooded, two-fisted, virile—_ 
not coarse, but rugged and square-shouldered! No 
one could walk twenty-five miles a day and more, as 
He frequently did, preaching as He went, healing the 


[ 26 J 


Pei ek eo a OE OP ISS US 


sick, raising the dead and restoring sight to blind eyes, 
and be a weakling. Modern ministers are frequently 
exhausted after a Sabbath day of three services! What 
shall we say of Christ—the tireless preacher and 
teacher? 

After the scourging was accomplished began a scene 
that will shame noble men and women as long as the 
world stands. Christ, trembling from the terrific pun- 
ishment, is to be subjected to yet further indignities! 
“He is a King, is He!” cried some ruffian in the crowd. 
“Well, Pll make a King of Him,” and reaching down 
into a pile of cast-off clothing near-by, he drew forth 
an old purple robe, dirty and moth-eaten—one of 
Pilate’s cast-off garments, perhaps! Approaching 
Christ, he throws it around His shoulders! ‘He is a 
King, is He?” cried another, “Well, I’ll make a King 
of Him,” and he plucks an old broken reed from the 
roadside and places it in the trembling hand of the 
Master, while. still another miserable fellow presses 
down upon that holy brow a crown of Palestinian 
thorns, stinging, needle-like, poisonous. There He 
stood—the Son of God. Humanity must hang its head 
as long as time lasts when it views this scene! 

The priests, however, still cried out in sullen fury, 
saying, “Away with this man Jesus, crucify Him!” 
(John 19:6). 

Pilate was now dismayed indeed. During the time 
that Jesus had been before Herod, Pilate had received 
a message from his wife, Claudia Procula, in which she 
had urged him to “have nothing to do with this just 
Man.” Calling for a bowl of water, he washed his 
hands before the mob, declaring as he did so, “I am 


Hay a 


THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


innocent of the blood of this just Man.” Why did he 
stand thus washing his hands when he should have 
been exercising them? O, Pilate! blood does not come 
off so easily. ‘His blood be upon us, and upon our 
children,’ responded the Jews! The scattered and 
despised Jewish nation is, today, an unwilling witness 
as to how effectively and entirely God took those Jews 
at their word! That was a goodly heritage that those 
Jews left their children, was it not? When Titus swept 
down upon Jerusalem with his Roman legions in the 
year 70 A.D., and there were so many Jews killed 
that there were not crosses enough for the bodies and 
not space enough for the crosses about the city, did 
the Jews then recall their words? “His blood be upon 
us, and upon our children,” they cried, “for He has — 
made Himself the Son of God” (John 19:7). | 
Something in those words smote the heart of Pilate. 
“Son of God!” “Son of God!” rang in his ears. He 
remembered Christ’s calmness through all. the turbu- 
lent scenes of the day, and he was troubled and wor- 
ried, and called Christ in for another interview. 
Stepping out from this final examination of Christ, 
Pilate again sought to release Him (John 19:12). 
Christ had been three times acquitted. By all that © 
stands for law and justice He should have been at once 
set free. Why was He not released? 
The reason is found, I believe, in a careful study of 
Roman history, and of Pilate’s part in that history. _ 
Pilate presents here a most pathetic figure. Con- 
vinced of the innocence of Jesus, and cordially despis- _ 
ing every Jew in the mob, from the most humble arti- 
san to the broadest phylacteried Pharisee, he stood 


[ 28 ] 


Dihte “PR EAD VOR TESUS 


helpless and pale in their power. Had he but dared 
he would have crushed them beneath his heel. All that 
survived in him that was fine and noble and honorable 
cried out against turning this innocent Man over to 
this mob of murderers. But he was in their power. 
He was gripped and bound by the sins of the past as 
by fetters of steel. He knew the right, but dared not 
do it. He was caught in a trap of his own making, and 
the crafty Jews knew it as well as he. While he still 
hesitated, they came nearer to him and one of them 
said, “If thou let this Man go, thou are not Cesar’s 
friend” (John 19:12). It was enough. Those words 
did the work! ‘There is at this point a sudden change 
in his demeanor, for we read that he at once “gave 
Jesus over to be crucified.’ Why? What was the 
dark, sinister meaning of those words that they should 
so terrify the heart of Pilate? 

Most writers who have dealt with this subject attrib- 
ute Pilate’s fear of, and his yielding to, this mob of 
blood-thirsty villains, to the fact that he was already 
in disfavor at the court of the emperor Tiberius, be- 
cause of his high-handed policy in the Province he gov- 
erned, and because of the many mistakes he had made 
in its government. That was certainly one of the rea- 
sons he feared and yielded. He had made grave mis- 
takes in connection with the building of a great aque- 
duct for the construction of which he had sought to 
appropriate some of the temple money. He had en- 
raged the Jews by placing upon the temple Roman 
standards which bore the image of the Emperor. But 
Pilate had dared to defy these Jews before! Why did 
he quake and tremble now? 


[ 29 | 





THE TRIAL OF JESUS 


The real reason is to be found, the writer believes, 
in a careful study of the history of this period of the 
- Roman Empire. 


Tiberius Caesar was Emperor of. Rome at this time. — 


He was a morbid, moody, melancholy despot who lived 
a life of seclusion on the island Capri, in the Bay of 
Naples, leaving the active management of the affairs 
of the Empire to his Lieutenant Sejanus. 

Now, this Sejanus was a scheming and ambitious in- 
dividual, who, while professing great loyalty to the 
Emperor, had secretly organized a plot to kill him and 
seize the reins of government. Many of the Governors 
of the outlying Provinces, including Pilate and Herod 


Antipas, were, as we learn from history, involved in 


this plot against Tiberius. So carefully had the move- 
ment been organized by Sejanus, however, that none of 
the men involved knew just who the others in the plot 
were. But Herod Antipas, fox that he was, knowing 
that he himself was guilty of conspiracy against the 
Emperor, shrewdly and correctly suspected that Pilate, 


his personal enemy, was also involved. When he sent | 


Jesus back to Pilate, therefore, he saw a splendid 
opportunity to humiliate him, and force him to an un- 


pleasant task. We can see him now, craftily suggest-_ 


ing to Christ’s accusers, if Pilate hesitated to obey 
their wishes and condemn the Man, that they question 
his real friendship for Cesar! It was a master stroke 
of cunning and worked perfectly. Pilate, on the point 
of releasing Jesus, hears the sneering, insinuating 
words, “If thou let this Man go, thou art not Cesar’s 
friend,” and, terrified to the heart, fearing that in some 


way his participation in the plot to murder the Em- 


[ 30 | 


THESTRIAL OF LESUS 


peror has become known, he immediately surrenders to 
the wishes of the mob! He dare not refuse to do their 
bidding. He is theirs—body and soul! He and Herod 
at once become friends (Luke 23:12). Of course they 
do, for each recognizes in the other a fellow con- 
spirator! Thus Christ is handed over. Pilate ascends 
the judgment throne and tapping with the imperial 
gavel pronounces the words of doom upon the Christ 
—“‘Tbis ad crucem. I, miles, expedi crucem.”’ The 
crucifixion is decreed and the sad scene which follows 
is familiar. 

It is interesting to recall, while we are on this point, 
that Tiberius, through his network of spies throughout 
the empire, knew of the treachery of Sejanus all the 
while, and, after advancing him from honor to honor, 
killed him and a number of his associates in a most 
unique and savage way. 

What a trial! In a few short hours Jesus was 
arrested, taken’ before the Sanhedrin, found guilty of 
blasphemy; then taken before Pilate, charged with 
treason and acquitted; then taken before Herod on 
the same charge and acquitted; then taken before 
Pilate on the same charge and again acquitted. Still 
the priesthood thirsted for His blood. 

There is a fundamental rule of law, which says that 
no one shall be tried twicé for the same offense. Jesus 
had been tried four. times} once condemned, and three 
times acquitted. Then He was crucified, not for the 
crime of which He had been convicted, but for the 
crime of which He had been three times acquitted. 

This was the trial of Jesus—the greatest monstrosity 
in the annals of legal history. 


[ 31 ] 


9 ae 





ai 


Pas, 








¥. 


nH 
© 
be 
© 
G 
he 
Cc 


Makers 


Gay! 
Syracuse. N. 





BS2425.6 .B81 
The trial of Jesus. 


Princeton Theological Seminary—Speer Lib 


CO 


1 1012 00057 2448 






a 
wet 
ead ‘ 
+ aS ; + 
7% sind 1S 
7” 4 inf 
iy? * a ‘ 3 
r 4 : : > 
} 
; 
eo 
y 
x } 
ms : 
ry 
emaeY ha ‘ 
At ; 
b- jf 
CRS oe ie 
oy i; 
: ae hs 3 
4 ws 
aE 
ae 
mM Dy 
‘iit i 
; nae 
pan j 


